|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 479 Records
-
1998 (11) TMI 59 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Investment Allowance, Actual Cost ... ... ... ... ..... ee on instalment basis for acquisition of an asset under the deferred payment scheme for the period subsequent to the date the machinery was first put to use. Explanation 8 to section 43(1) was clearly attracted and the amount of interest could not be included in the actual cost for the purposes of allowing depreciation and development rebate . In the instant case, depreciation has been claimed on interest payable on a deferred payment scheme which is identical to the facts involved in the case decided by the Bombay High Court reported in CIT v. Rajaram Bandekar 1993 202 ITR 514. We concur with the view taken by the Bombay High Court. We hold that the amount of interest could not be included in the actual cost for the purpose of depreciation and development rebate applying Explanation 8 to section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The view taken by the Tribunal is not justified. Accordingly, we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 58 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Penalty, Delay In Submission Of Returns ... ... ... ... ..... is clear from the statement of the case as also the order of the Tribunal that the assessee did not submit any explanation whatsoever about the reasonable cause for the delay of 12 months in submission of the return. The assessee even did not respond to the show-cause notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal has specifically recorded this fact in its order. On a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 271(1)(a) of the Act are attracted to the case of the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the above finding of the Tribunal. The Tribunal was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case in coming to the above conclusion. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 57 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government ... ... ... ... ..... o so. The petitioners shall refund to the respondent authority the entire amount received by them together with interest at the rate of 15 percent from the date on which they received the money till the date they refund the money to the respondent authority. After they repay the monies with interest, the authority shall hand over possession of the residence in the same manner as it was subject to reasonable wear and tear between the date of taking possession and the date of re-delivery to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for three months time within which to make the payment. Such time is granted. The petition is allowed. It is made clear that besides the contentions dealt with in this order, learned counsel for the petitioners sought to raise other contentions which I have considered unnecessary to advert to in this order, in view of my finding that the petitioners are entitled to the relief on the grounds set out in the above paragraphs. No costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 56 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government ... ... ... ... ..... is one which cannot be regarded as identical for the purpose of valuation of the properties owned by the petitioners. The residential house on a relatively small size of a small plot cannot command the same value as the two plots which are capable of being used together for the purpose of putting up a multi-storeyed construction thereon. The authority shall keep these factors in mind while computing the value of the property of the petitioners herein. The impugned order has omitted to take into account some relevant facts, and has proceeded under a wrong assumption that the property acquired by the developer for carrying out substantial development by way of construction of buildings with several floors, can be compared with a small property, the impugned order is therefore set aside. The matter is remitted back to the authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations made in this order. W. P.s are accordingly ordered. WMPs are closed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 55 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rity to exercise that power in a manner which is consistent with the requirements of and will advance the purpose of the provision under which the power is vested. Such power is required to be exercised consistent with. the principles of natural justice, unless such principles are excludible in law, having regard to the context in which the power is exercised. A person who invokes the jurisdiction which is available to the authority, and which jurisdiction is to be exercised for the purpose of relieving a person who has genuine hardship according to his plea, is entitled to the consideration of his claim in a manner which can be regarded as lawful. The impugned order which is a bald refusal, in the circumstances, cannot be sustained. That order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Central Board of Direct Taxes for reconsideration in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made in the course of this order. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance Of Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... reated for the purpose with at least 50 per cent of the amount payable as gratuity to its employees for all the years of service rendered by them upto that date. The provision is required to be made for the previous year relevant to any assessment year commencing on or after the 1-4-1973, but before the 1-4-1976. The assessee as noticed earlier had credited the entire amount and not merely 50 per cent. of the fund on 9-9-1975, a date which clearly falls within the period mentioned in section 40A(7)(b)(ii) of the Act. The statutory provisions, therefore, enables the assessee to make the provisions in any of the assessment years falling between the 1-4-1973, and the 1-4-1976, and the provision made in all these years, if the other conditions of that provision are satisfied, would be eligible for being claimed as a deduction in the year in which the provision was made. The question referred to us in therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 53 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l power is vested in the Commissioner, erroneous orders would remain without any scope for correction. So far as the assessee is concerned, the position is not the same. The assessee has the right of appeal against the original order and in such an appeal, the assessee is enabled to urge all the grounds in relation to the matter which was the subject-matter of the assessment including claims which had not been raised before the assessing officer. It is only in cases where the assessee has chosen not to avail of the appellate remedy, the assessee s interests are further protected by enabling the assessee to invoke revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner. There is, therefore, no denial of the assessee s rights by the imposition of the bar under section 264(4)(c) of the Act. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from infirmity, requiring our interference. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 52 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Fines And Penalties, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ale to him of the goods, if the sale had been a sale falling with in that sub-section. In this case, the tax payable by the assessee, had the assessee not violated the terms of the statute was 10 per cent. What was actually paid by him was only 3 per cent. The penalty that has been imposed is only the difference. The amount so recovered though termed penalty is in fact compensatory as the assessee had only been now made to pay what he should have paid initially as tax. Had the authority imposed any further liability over and above the amount of tax payable, such imposition would have assumed the character of penalty. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduct the amount paid by him though termed as penalty under section 10A of the Act while computing its income from its business. The question referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The assessee shall be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 1,000.
-
1998 (11) TMI 51 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Power Of Cit, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... rt in instant case, we find that the Appellate Tribunal has not decided the question whether there were materials for the Commissioner of Income-tax to exercise the power of revision and also not decided the question on the merits of the case. Since the Appellate Tribunal has not expressed its view one way or the other on both aspects, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal should consider the question whether the Commissioner had necessary materials to invoke his revisional power under section 263 of the Act and also on the merits of the case. We, accordingly, answer the question of law referred to us in the negative and in favour of the revenue. Though we have answered the question referred to us in the manner indicated above, the Tribunal is directed to consider the question whether there are materials for the Commissioner to invoke his power under section 263 of the Act and also on the merits of the case. However, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 50 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Exemption, Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... rovides that the trust property shall be applied for such charitable purpose as may be decided upon by the trustees. The discretion given to the trustee is not to choose any purpose, but only purposes which are charitable for which the trust properties and income therefrom can be utilised. The word properties in the trust deed, having regard to the context must be understood as including the income derived from the properties, as the deed specifically provides that the trust property shall be applied for charitable purposes. The reference to the application would indicate that the author of the trust intended that all that belonged to the trust is utilised for the purpose of charity. The mandate is therefore clear that the properties of the trust which having regard to the context, should include the income from the properties, should be applied solely for charitable purposes. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
1998 (11) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Investment Allowance, Actual Cost ... ... ... ... ..... rt of the agreement entered into with the foreign collaborator for receiving the technical know-how under the agreement. The amount so paid as tax has been held to be an amount payable by virtue of the terms of the agreement between the collaborator and the assessee. Had the collaborator not been assured of the assessee undertaking the liability, the collaborator would have charged higher fee to cover the liability for taxes. It is only on the assurance of the assessee that the liability will be met by the assessee, the collaborator had agreed to receive the sum specified in the agreement. The Tribunal was right in its view that the amount so paid by the assessee was only in discharge of a liability which it had undertaken in terms of the agreement entered into between the assessee and the collaborator and it, therefore, forms part of the consideration for the agreement relating to know-how. We, therefore, answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
1998 (11) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... oticed the fact that the conducting chits and collection of deposits from the public was also one of the activities and that again was not its predominant or primary object. The Wealth Tax Act or the, Income Tax Act does not define charitable activities for the purposes of wealth-tax. It is not essential that the trust claiming to be a charitable trust must be wholly and exclusively engaged in charitable activity. It is sufficient, if its primary or predominant object is charitable. The Tribunal, after a close scrutiny of the terms of the trust deed and the purposes for which the funds and income of the trust has been applied, has held that the object of the trust was predominantly charitable and that all the income of the trust at all times was applied for charitable purposes. We see no reason to differ from that conclusion of the Tribunal, after having perused the terms of the trust deed. We, therefore answer the Question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue .
-
1998 (11) TMI 47 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Case, Firm, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... ee Halsbury s Laws of England, volume II, third edition, page 140, pr. 265, and also the case reported in O. A. O. K. Lakshmanan Chettiar v. Commissioner, Corporation of Madras 1927 AIR 1927 Mad 130, which are referred to in the decision in the case of Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India 1957 31 ITR 565 (SC). In the case of Pannalal Binjraj 1957 31 ITR 565, which is a Constitution Bench decision, the Supreme Court lays down the law to the effect that If an assessee has acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to whom a case has been transferred, he cannot subsequently object to the jurisdiction of the officer and seek to get the order of transfer quashed by invoking the jurisdiction of the court under article 226 of the Constitution. This being the law in respect of cases where the assessee has acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the transferee court, the submissions made by Shri Bajla have no application in this case. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Other Sources, Property ... ... ... ... ..... s posed before the Calcutta High Court are entirely different, as the court held that the question referred was a limited one, whether the income from the building and the income attributable to the amenities provided by the assessee should be assessed under the head Income from other sources . According to us, it is clear from the facts of the cases that the letting out of the premises with fittings was a single and indivisible transaction and, therefore. the entire rent received by the assessee from such a composite letting was liable to be and it was rightly held to be assessable under the head Income from other sources . The order of the Appellate Tribunal taking this view, in our view, is quite justified and sustainable on the facts of the case. Accordingly, we answer the common question of law referred in all the tax cases in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... him in the past . The payment is, therefore, clearly in the nature of gratuitous payment voluntarily made in appreciation of the services which he had rendered to the assessee in the past. If the payment of a sum of Rs. 40,000 as gratuity to a person who had served the company for a period of over 27 years cannot be regarded as an expenditure which was commercially expedient and for the purpose of facilitating the carrying on of the business of the company, the payment of a substantial sum of Rs. 2,54,994 to an adviser who was obviously a part time adviser and to whom many valuable facilities had been provided under the agreement and who had not in put the money from the company and was not in need of such payment, cannot also be regarded as an expenditure which was commercially expedient and was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the company. We, therefore, answer the first question referred to us in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1998 (11) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Asset, Annuity, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... e definition provision beyond their plain literal meaning. What was intended to be taxed are the assets and what was excluded from the category of assets is not within the purview of the Act. An annuity purchased by a person who had not entered into a contract with the assessee is not an asset for the purpose of the Act, if the other condition, namely, that the terms and conditions of the annuity preclude the commutation of any portion thereof into a lump sum grant is satisfied. The fact that all the partners have an interest in the partnership property does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that for the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act, even in the absence of appropriate language therein, the contract to which the firm is a party, should be treated as a contract with each partner individually. The question referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee shall be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 2,000 (rupees two thousand only).
-
1998 (11) TMI 43 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Previous Year, Words And Phrases ... ... ... ... ..... by him. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. K. Ramachandra Rao 1981 127 ITR 414, has held that in the case of an advocate elevated to the Bench before the closure of the financial year the assessee was entitled to a separate previous year in respect of his salary as a judge and that the making up of all the accounts by the assessed is material in fixing a crucial date for the individual source of income. In that case also, the assessee had claimed that he had maintained separate accounts in respect of his salary income as a judge and made up his accounts for the previous year ending on July 31, 1969, and therefore that income should be assessed in the assessment year 1970-71 and not 1969-70. That claim of the assessee was upheld by that court. We therefore answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee shall be entitled to costs in a sum of Rs. 1,500 (rupees one thousand and five hundred only).
-
1998 (11) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by supply of electricity and that business was interrupted only by reason of the Act the possible resumption of the business was dependent on the outcome of the appeal pending before the Supreme Court. The amounts claimed were also not very substantial. The Tribunal has taken a broad view of the matter and has held in favour of the asses see. We do not see any good grounds to differ. The two questions referred to us viz. 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding and had valid materials to hold that all the expenses incurred by it in running the establishment should be allowed as a deduction in computing the income ? and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding and had valid materials to hold that there was no discontinuation of the business by the assessee-company ? are therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1998 (11) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Valuation Of Assets ... ... ... ... ..... ilding and Rs. 1,50,000 as the value of the land. Though the Hindu undivided family is not the owner of the building, it is the members of the Hindu undivided family who admittedly reside in the building and the building is used exclusively for residential purpose. It is on account of the fact that the karta is a member of the Hindu undivided family and the building has been put up by him though in his individual capacity on the land belonging to the Hindu undivided family. The valuation of the land and building together initially and thereafter allocating the value towards the building and the land separately and assessing the value of the building in the hands of the individual and the value of the land in the hands of the-Hindu undivided family, in the circumstances, was the correct approach to be adopted. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. We answer the questions referred to us in these references in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1998 (11) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... e answer thereto also must be in favour of the assessee in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in CED v. Roshan Jahangir Gandhi 1994 205 ITR 428. The Supreme Court therein approved the view of the High Court which had held that amounts borrowed for paying the estate duty and discharged from and out of the sale proceeds of the sale from which capital gains had been derived is part of the capital gain required to be computed for the purpose of section 50B of the Estate Duty Act. The Supreme Court held that the view of the High Court cannot be said to be one which would not advance the cause of justice. We are also of the view that the cause of justice is better advanced by enabling the accountable person to treat the repayment of borrowals from and out of the capital gains derived from the sale of the property of the deceased as part of the payment made towards the estate duty payable. The third question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
....
|
